If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   Chick-fil-A Got Caught Pretending to Be a Teenage Girl on Facebook   (gizmodo.com) divider line 356
    More: Amusing, A Facebook  
•       •       •

14251 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Jul 2012 at 3:17 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



356 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-26 03:27:37 PM  

Phil Payne: In the act of boycotting one single man you have also boycotted several gay rights activists and supporters of gay rights groups.


Get real. No minimum wage workers are being fired because CFA isn't getting my $20 every month. None of CFA's suppliers will need to adjust their charitable giving plans based on the loss of my business. Meanwhile, I have the satisfaction of knowing that my money isn't going into the hands of people working against me. That's good enough for me.
 
2012-07-26 03:28:35 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Apparently unconcerned is the group of four happy, funny caucasians eating pizza:

[www.colourbox.com image 480x321]


That's not pizza!
 
2012-07-26 03:28:53 PM  

quantum_jellyroll: I'm so cool! Blah blah blah! Everyone who thinks different from me is brainwashed!


You're adorable.
 
2012-07-26 03:40:51 PM  

Phil Payne: CheekyMonkey: roncofooddehydrator: You know what would make more sense than a boycott? Donating a dollar to a gay-rights group every time you ate at Chik-Fil-A. If the average sale is $10 (picking a round number), then that would equal 1,100 times what the Cathy's donate to anti-gay groups.

This is not an either-or proposition. How 'bout I not eat at CFA because of their repugnant political stance, AND donate to gay rights groups?

Because a boycott doesn't stop this it's like not voting for president and expecting your ideas to be represented anyway by whoever gets elected. If you want to put a stop to this you have to actually make your presence known. Not only that but when you boycott a business you boycott other things too like the farmers who provided the chicken they server who also might be LGBT for all you know or the company that supplies its bread which btw actually DOES support gay rights (Sunbeam Breads). So really who are you boycotting?


I'm boycotting Chick-Fil-A. I thought that would be readily apparent. Your ridiculous attempt to argue that I must consider Chick-Fil-A's entire supply chain and worker base is just that - ridiculous. The proverbial buck stops with Chick-Fil-A's CEO, and if the boycott is effective enough that Chick-Fil-A needs to start closing restaurants, then it is the CEO who must change, not me.
 
2012-07-26 03:41:23 PM  

Phil Payne: ReverendLoki: Phil Payne: and yet I've worked for one and worked with two openly gay men one of which MANAGED the store. The company knew about their orientation and they were working their anyway with no ostracism. Most of the charities they CFA ...

They've even said that they do not discriminate against gay people, and openly hire and employ gay people. What irks a lot of people is that they are putting so much money towards groups who have denying homosexuals the right to marriage as one of their primary goals.

It's like they had the policy of "We have nothing against blacks and even often employ them, but we're gonna do all we can with our resources to keep them from marrying whites."

And I'm still trying to figure out how a boycott is going to stop this. The only way to stop laws from being made or change laws already made is to petition your local Congressional member. Again a boycott just doesn't get anything accomplished because its anonymous and never actually makes a statement. Any financial impact will be felt by the workers at the bottom of the chain before you would EVER hurt the main company's ability to fund these groups. This is the equivalency of trying to stop a boxer from punching someone by removing his gloves.


Have you ever heard of Rosa Parks or the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's in the USA?
 
2012-07-26 03:47:23 PM  
Rationally, "the power at their disposal" refers to lawful actions, whatever anyone thinks of them specifically. CFA is using the powers at their disposal to prosecute what they believe in (or at least what they say they do -- many outright bigots hide behind the Bible, that's not new at all). Same for Boston. Menino isn't some guy who took office by armed force. He's been elected four times in a row. Clearly, the People of Boston agree with him, and vice versa. At this point, it's probably fair to say that when Menino speaks, he speaks for the People of Boston. And the People of Boston, abrasive as they may be (I used to work there, don't get me started) have made it clear they don't want CFA there. It's not just Menino and city government who are ready to fight. It's all three million people there. Even if CFA somehow managed to lay a foot on the grou ...

It doesn't matter how many times Menino has been elected or how much support the gay community has in Boston. It is unlawful for the government to discriminate against a business for stating their religious beliefs, and that trumps everything you posted.

Even if I was wrong (which I'm not), do you think our nation would benefit from allowing politicians to pick and choose what businesses are allowed on their turf based on the company's position on the controversial issues of the day? That would be ridiculous.


Lawful actions are unlawful. Got it. Why didn't I see it sooner.
 
2012-07-26 03:49:30 PM  

CheekyMonkey:
I'm boycotting Chick-Fil-A. I thought that would be readily apparent. Your ridiculous attempt to argue that I must consider Chick-Fil-A's entire supply chain and worker base is just that - ridiculous. The proverbial buck stops with Chick-Fil-A's CEO, and if the boycott is effective enough that Chick-Fil-A needs to start closing restaurants, then it is the CEO who must change, not me.


You're boycotting CFA? No shiat Sherlock. And sure my comment that people need to look beyond the superficial is of course ridiculous to a society that has made a point of never looking past the superficial. That's part of the problem. The world is never as black and white as people act like it is. Your attempt at making what is beyond the superficial to be unimportant is of course just as ridiculous to me because I for one try my best to think of the implications of my actions and who it effects in the end. Also the "proverbial buck stops here" comment only works for a CEO who actually takes responsibility for their own actions instead of ignoring the responsibility. You need to understand that part of the concept as well. And if CFA actually does have to shut down stores I'm sure those newly unemployed workers will be satisfied that it was all for the good of trying to change their CEO... yeah I'm totally sure that would happen.
 
2012-07-26 03:58:53 PM  

chewielouie: mooseyfate: People trying desperately to work the free speech angle in favor of Cfa are pretty much putting their fingers in their ears and screaming "lalalalacanthearyou" at this point. This IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. This is not a RELIGIOUS ISSUE. This is a matter of CHOOSING not to SUPPORT a company that SUPPORTS AN ANTI-GAY AGENDA. It really can't be anymore clear.

Wrong.


Well, you sure showed me. Fantastic argument. Off to go buy up as much Chickfila as I can afford.

/idiot
 
2012-07-26 04:08:07 PM  

Phil Payne: And sure my comment that people need to look beyond the superficial is of course ridiculous to a society that has made a point of never looking past the superficial. That's part of the problem. The world is never as black and white as people act like it is.


Do you apply the same logic to both sides? After all, by opposing gay marriage CFA is taking money out of the pockets of wedding planners, florists, bakeries, tuxedo rentals, bridal shops, printers, bands and disc jockeys, photographers, videographers, limousine services, ballrooms and caterers. Not to mention hotels and airlines for the honeymoon, and department stores for the gift registries.

We have to look past the superficial, right? Or does that only apply to me?
 
2012-07-26 04:08:30 PM  

Phil Payne: CheekyMonkey:
I'm boycotting Chick-Fil-A. I thought that would be readily apparent. Your ridiculous attempt to argue that I must consider Chick-Fil-A's entire supply chain and worker base is just that - ridiculous. The proverbial buck stops with Chick-Fil-A's CEO, and if the boycott is effective enough that Chick-Fil-A needs to start closing restaurants, then it is the CEO who must change, not me.

You're boycotting CFA? No shiat Sherlock. And sure my comment that people need to look beyond the superficial is of course ridiculous to a society that has made a point of never looking past the superficial. That's part of the problem. The world is never as black and white as people act like it is. Your attempt at making what is beyond the superficial to be unimportant is of course just as ridiculous to me because I for one try my best to think of the implications of my actions and who it effects in the end. Also the "proverbial buck stops here" comment only works for a CEO who actually takes responsibility for their own actions instead of ignoring the responsibility. You need to understand that part of the concept as well. And if CFA actually does have to shut down stores I'm sure those newly unemployed workers will be satisfied that it was all for the good of trying to change their CEO... yeah I'm totally sure that would happen.


The flaw in your argument is that, from your point of view, nothing should ever change, because, inevitably, there will be some sort of negative consequence for someone, somewhere. I'm not buying it. No rational person will.
 
2012-07-26 04:25:03 PM  

CheekyMonkey:
The flaw in your argument is that, from your point of view, nothing should ever change, because, inevitably, there will be some sort of negative consequence for someone, somewhere. I'm not buying it. No rational person will.


No my argument is that boycotts never work the way to make change happen in things like this is through making sure that you lobby for the laws that support freedom of way of life and belief and make sure your voice is heard in a public forum. By just boycotting his business you have succeeding in nothing more than patting yourself on the back and leaving things the way they are. Trust me this boycott itself will have no lasting effect as much as voicing your wishes to your local Congress member and pushing the subject into the public light personally will. Boycotts through history have always had a majority failure rate because they are too impersonal. The ones that succeeded did so because they used other methods as well and they made change happen proactively. There is no face to place with a boycott so soon people will forget it and move on. Movements like PETA make more fuss over their advertising campaigns and making sure the word is out constantly in public memory than they ever do by getting people to boycott specific businesses that don't follow their beliefs. This is just one example of many.
 
2012-07-26 04:25:06 PM  

CheekyMonkey: Phil Payne: CheekyMonkey:
I'm boycotting Chick-Fil-A. I thought that would be readily apparent. Your ridiculous attempt to argue that I must consider Chick-Fil-A's entire supply chain and worker base is just that - ridiculous. The proverbial buck stops with Chick-Fil-A's CEO, and if the boycott is effective enough that Chick-Fil-A needs to start closing restaurants, then it is the CEO who must change, not me.

You're boycotting CFA? No shiat Sherlock. And sure my comment that people need to look beyond the superficial is of course ridiculous to a society that has made a point of never looking past the superficial. That's part of the problem. The world is never as black and white as people act like it is. Your attempt at making what is beyond the superficial to be unimportant is of course just as ridiculous to me because I for one try my best to think of the implications of my actions and who it effects in the end. Also the "proverbial buck stops here" comment only works for a CEO who actually takes responsibility for their own actions instead of ignoring the responsibility. You need to understand that part of the concept as well. And if CFA actually does have to shut down stores I'm sure those newly unemployed workers will be satisfied that it was all for the good of trying to change their CEO... yeah I'm totally sure that would happen.

The flaw in your argument is that, from your point of view, nothing should ever change, because, inevitably, there will be some sort of negative consequence for someone, somewhere. I'm not buying it. No rational person will.


That's pretty much all that needs to be said, and it's sad as fark, because it's common sense and shouldn't need saying at all.
 
2012-07-26 04:26:44 PM  

FloydA: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." ~Martin Luther.


Uh, hey, everybody! I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and big butt and my butt smells and I like to kiss my own butt. ~ Martin Luther
 
2012-07-26 04:41:52 PM  

Phil Payne:

And you both totally ignored the rest of what was said. In the act of boycotting one single man you have also boycotted several gay rights activists and supporters of gay rights groups. So is a failed attempt at getting to one guy really worth making things hard for the rest?




You asked "...how a boycott is going to stop this" and I replied "it's not meant to." You asked a question, and I answered it. I did not address any of the other issues you raised, because they did not seem to require it.


If you would like me to defend a completely ridiculous position that you made up, which is exactly what you are asking me to do here, I might be willing to do so, but only for a rather exorbitant fee, paid in advance.
 
2012-07-26 04:43:09 PM  

mooseyfate: CheekyMonkey: Phil Payne: CheekyMonkey:
I'm boycotting Chick-Fil-A. I thought that would be readily apparent. Your ridiculous attempt to argue that I must consider Chick-Fil-A's entire supply chain and worker base is just that - ridiculous. The proverbial buck stops with Chick-Fil-A's CEO, and if the boycott is effective enough that Chick-Fil-A needs to start closing restaurants, then it is the CEO who must change, not me.

You're boycotting CFA? No shiat Sherlock. And sure my comment that people need to look beyond the superficial is of course ridiculous to a society that has made a point of never looking past the superficial. That's part of the problem. The world is never as black and white as people act like it is. Your attempt at making what is beyond the superficial to be unimportant is of course just as ridiculous to me because I for one try my best to think of the implications of my actions and who it effects in the end. Also the "proverbial buck stops here" comment only works for a CEO who actually takes responsibility for their own actions instead of ignoring the responsibility. You need to understand that part of the concept as well. And if CFA actually does have to shut down stores I'm sure those newly unemployed workers will be satisfied that it was all for the good of trying to change their CEO... yeah I'm totally sure that would happen.

The flaw in your argument is that, from your point of view, nothing should ever change, because, inevitably, there will be some sort of negative consequence for someone, somewhere. I'm not buying it. No rational person will.

That's pretty much all that needs to be said, and it's sad as fark, because it's common sense and shouldn't need saying at all.


Common sense is not nearly as common as the name implies. I believe I am done beating my head against the wall that is Phil Payne. I can't keep up with the moving goalposts.
 
2012-07-26 04:54:49 PM  
mooseyfate:
That's pretty much all that needs to be said, and it's sad as fark, because it's common sense and shouldn't need saying at all.

No the problem is that they are only focusing on the fact I said the boycott itself doesn't work and ignore all the things I said DO work. I gave alternatives and they ignored them because the lazy way is easier I guess. And it's odd you say "common sense" because a man named Thomas Payne wrote something called that that basically was all about what I said you do to make change in society. Guess he didn't understand it either. Then again people like him are the reason you actually have the freedom to do the things you are doing now.
 
2012-07-26 05:09:11 PM  

Phil Payne: Trust me this boycott itself will have no lasting effect as much as voicing your wishes to your local Congress member and pushing the subject into the public light personally will.


What makes you think I haven't contacted my congressional and state representatives on a regular basis about LGBT issues over the years, or done other things to bring the issue to public attention?

No my argument is that boycotts never work...

The ones that succeeded did so because...


So boycotts never work. Except for when they do.
 
2012-07-26 05:09:59 PM  

Phil Payne: mooseyfate:
That's pretty much all that needs to be said, and it's sad as fark, because it's common sense and shouldn't need saying at all.

No the problem is that they are only focusing on the fact I said the boycott itself doesn't work and ignore all the things I said DO work. I gave alternatives and they ignored them because the lazy way is easier I guess. And it's odd you say "common sense" because a man named Thomas Payne wrote something called that that basically was all about what I said you do to make change in society. Guess he didn't understand it either. Then again people like him are the reason you actually have the freedom to do the things you are doing now.



Find the spot where anyone said that we should boycott INSTEAD OF taking other actions.

I understand that's what you wish others were saying, but I really am not seeing it. You seem to be operating under the assumption that people have to choose between boycotting and taking other actions. This seems like a false dilemma. One can boycott and write to elected officials, and picket, and write news editorials, and set up websites, etc. These are not mutually exclusive activities.

I suggest that you stop making up straw men positions and accusing others of supporting them, but that's just me. Maybe that tactic works for you.
 
2012-07-26 05:13:31 PM  

FloydA: Phil Payne: mooseyfate:
That's pretty much all that needs to be said, and it's sad as fark, because it's common sense and shouldn't need saying at all.

No the problem is that they are only focusing on the fact I said the boycott itself doesn't work and ignore all the things I said DO work. I gave alternatives and they ignored them because the lazy way is easier I guess. And it's odd you say "common sense" because a man named Thomas Payne wrote something called that that basically was all about what I said you do to make change in society. Guess he didn't understand it either. Then again people like him are the reason you actually have the freedom to do the things you are doing now.


Find the spot where anyone said that we should boycott INSTEAD OF taking other actions.

I understand that's what you wish others were saying, but I really am not seeing it. You seem to be operating under the assumption that people have to choose between boycotting and taking other actions. This seems like a false dilemma. One can boycott and write to elected officials, and picket, and write news editorials, and set up websites, etc. These are not mutually exclusive activities.

I suggest that you stop making up straw men positions and accusing others of supporting them, but that's just me. Maybe that tactic works for you.


Well, in a way, it helps him win arguments by default, as no one wants to argue with someone like that.
 
2012-07-26 05:16:54 PM  

mooseyfate:
Well, in a way, it helps him win arguments by default, as no one wants to argue with someone like that.


I have to admit it is getting rather annoying.
 
2012-07-26 05:29:05 PM  
I just hope no one getting gay married is giving their partner a diamond ring.
 
2012-07-26 05:31:31 PM  

FloydA:
Find the spot where anyone said that we should boycott INSTEAD OF taking other actions.

I understand that's what you wish others were saying, but I really am not seeing it. You seem to be operating under the assumption that people have to choose between boycotting and taking other actions. This seems like a false dilemma. One can boycott and write to elected officials, and picket, and write news editorials, and set up websites, etc. These are not mutually exclusive activities.

I suggest that you stop making up straw men positions and accusing others of supporting them, but that's just me. Maybe that tactic works for you.


I never said that you should not boycott I just said it doesn't work alone. I even said earlier to boycott if you want to just don't leave it at that which is what it seems most people end up doing. You just didn't read everything I've said and seem to think I am just going against the boycott. I'm against people who do it only because they think its the only way or the easy way and expect things to change.

The Why Not Guy:

No my argument is that boycotts never work...

The ones that succeeded did so because...

So boycotts never work. Except for when they do.


Context is important though. I did say it that way in that once instance but previous instances and later said boycotts alone never work. I'll give you this one as it was a failure in how I said it in that one instance.


Evidently the lot of you have missed my point entirely through everyone else only focusing on one thing I said and at this point you are set in keeping that stance so you keep on with your ideas and I'll keep fighting this the way I know works. As always I will continue to focus my efforts on direct verbal debate with my government as only the government has the power to limit my freedom and not the voice and whim of a single person. If you are doing the same then I applaud you but I fear too many don't. But the obvious point is the whol lot of us are stubborn.
 
2012-07-26 05:43:21 PM  

Phil Payne:

I never said that you should not boycott I just said it doesn't work alone. I even said earlier to boycott if you want to just don't leave it at that which is what it seems most people end up doing. You just didn't read everything I've said and seem to think I am just going against the boycott. I'm against people who do it only because they think its the only way or the easy way and expect things to change.



I would like you to read the following sentence and try to take it as seriously as possible, because it is a very important point that you seem to be missing.

Nobody is making the argument that you are trying to refute.

Do you understand that?

You are arguing against a straw man that only exists in your imagination. You are accusing others of holding positions that they do not hold. It is a sloppy, ineffective, and extremely annoying rhetorical strategy that everyone who has been on Fark for more than a few hours can see right through. Please stop doing it.
 
2012-07-26 06:26:30 PM  

Gimmick: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Gimmick: profplump: Gimmick: political/religious differences

It stops being a legitimate political/religious speech when it starts infringing on the rights of others. You can argue about where that line falls -- and that argument is valid political speech, and that argument might change the law -- but it is the duty of government officials to uphold the rights of all citizens.

I don't agree with Chick-fil-A, but they haven't broken any laws nor are they infringing on anyone's rights by expressing their opinion.

The mayor of Boston made it a matter of public record that they would use the power at their disposal to hassle Chick-fil-A for no other reasons than Chick-fil-A's opposition to gay marriage on religious grounds. That is corruption and religious discrimination. The irony is that the mayor's declaration made it more difficult for anyone in Boston to do anything to Chick-fil-A. If CfA has any difficulties with permits, fire marshals, health inspectors or whatnot; CfA will run to a judge and use the mayor's statements to claim discrimination. The mayor's behavior isn't just unethical, it is poor strategy.

Rationally, "the power at their disposal" refers to lawful actions, whatever anyone thinks of them specifically. CFA is using the powers at their disposal to prosecute what they believe in (or at least what they say they do -- many outright bigots hide behind the Bible, that's not new at all). Same for Boston. Menino isn't some guy who took office by armed force. He's been elected four times in a row. Clearly, the People of Boston agree with him, and vice versa. At this point, it's probably fair to say that when Menino speaks, he speaks for the People of Boston. And the People of Boston, abrasive as they may be (I used to work there, don't get me started) have made it clear they don't want CFA there. It's not just Menino and city government who are ready to fight. It's all three million people there. Even if CFA somehow managed to l ...


You're kind of a shiathead, aren't you?
 
2012-07-26 06:38:57 PM  

DeerNuts: Damn, the franchise fee is really low, but the only thing that gets you is the right to use their name and business model. To actually build, equip and open the restaurant you're probably looking at $750 grand to a million.

I don't know a lot about restaurant franchises, but the royalties are high and I've never heard of a franchisor that takes from both the top and bottom line. And fifty percent of profits? Damn!


It doesn't work like most other franchise operations. CFA picks the location (the franchisee has no choice and can't dispute it), builds the thing, and owns it outright. The franchisee never owns it and can't build equity. The franchise kicks up a huge portion of sales to HQ. That's why the entry is so low -- the owner takes very little risk and invests very little. Even the fee is returnable. Compare to, say, Dunkin Donuts, which you need a quarter million *cash* (*not* financed) just to ask. Both can make the franchisee a lot of money if run properly, but CFA 'franchisees' are not owners -- just managers.
 
2012-07-26 06:42:24 PM  

Saberus Terras: pregerstheHobo: Hell, I'm an atheistic alcoholic that lost all hope in humanity long ago and I keep a Mr. Rogers quote calendar on my desk.

I think Fred Rogers is a true, model Christian man. He doesn't hate, he loves. He may not like homosexuality, but he will not bash, hate, condemn, or fight to deny a homosexual's rights, nor will he give a dime to groups that would. He knows that we should love our fellow man, and let God be the one to judge us when we all reach the afterlife.*

*The above is strictly opinion, no claim of accuracy is made. Please, Farkers, don't f*** up Mr. Rogers for me.


I agree with you, though I hasten to note that the main reason Fred Rogers "will" not do any of those things is that he's been dead for nine years.
 
2012-07-26 07:01:49 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I agree with you, though I hasten to note that the main reason Fred Rogers "will" not do any of those things is that he's been dead for nine years.


Damnit... Will you permit me to move these goalposts to he "didn't" do any of those things?

Unless you have linkable evidence... then I'll eat crow/my hat/my words and go cry.
 
2012-07-26 07:43:06 PM  

Saberus Terras: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I agree with you, though I hasten to note that the main reason Fred Rogers "will" not do any of those things is that he's been dead for nine years.

Damnit... Will you permit me to move these goalposts to he "didn't" do any of those things?

Unless you have linkable evidence... then I'll eat crow/my hat/my words and go cry.


Mr. Rogers is personally responsible for the zombies. I swear, it's true.

and that's awesome. Rogers was a great guy.
 
2012-07-26 07:44:37 PM  

Saberus Terras: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I agree with you, though I hasten to note that the main reason Fred Rogers "will" not do any of those things is that he's been dead for nine years.

Damnit... Will you permit me to move these goalposts to he "didn't" do any of those things?

Unless you have linkable evidence... then I'll eat crow/my hat/my words and go cry.


Sorry, Phil Payne used of all the goalpost moving in this thread. You'll have to wait until the next thread about Chickfila shooings themselves in the foot, which should be any second now.
 
2012-07-26 07:45:52 PM  
Something lysdexic happened in my last submission....
 
2012-07-26 08:26:09 PM  

Fano: I just hope no one getting gay married is giving their partner a diamond ring.


I think my girlfriend and I have had discussions on the ethics of the diamond trade. Besides, she wants to become a paleontologist, so if our relationship succeeds and I were to one day propose to her with a rock, a fossil would be more appropriate.
 
2012-07-26 10:40:56 PM  
Why not treat them the same way as you would a friend who is anti-gay marriage? If they are, on balance, good people you can still hang out.

Guess I just don't see politics as something worth ruining a relationship over, whether that be business or personal. Probably got a few ex-friends who disagree.
 
2012-07-27 12:17:42 AM  

Old Smokie: Why not treat them the same way as you would a friend who is anti-gay marriage? If they are, on balance, good people you can still hang out.

Guess I just don't see politics as something worth ruining a relationship over, whether that be business or personal. Probably got a few ex-friends who disagree.


I respect your tolerance and patience, but when someone's politics include the idea that some American citizens do not deserve to have basic human rights and should be treated as less than fully human, well, "polite disagreement" is not sufficient.

Let me put it this way:

Gays are about 10% of the population of the US. Some people think that gays should not be allowed to marry the people they love.

Texans about 10% of the population of the US.

What would you say to someone who claimed that Texans should not have the right to marry? If you're like me, you'd say "f**k that; nobody can tell me who I can and can't marry! " and rightly so.

That's what the US is all about- personal freedom. Either everybody has the same rights or the "rights" don't mean squat. Rights are rights, and they are either ours simply by the nature of our existence (which I think), in which case everyone has the same rights, or our rights are "granted" to us by the government (which I don't think), in which case, some people get to decide who has rights and who doesn't. To me, the second case, which the anti-gay people are supporting, seems un-American.

So when someone tries to tell the gays "we get to decide who you can and can't marry," well, it gets my hackles up.

Now in the interests of full disclosure, I'm not personally interested in getting married to anyone at all, gay, straight, or otherwise. To me, marriage seems like a bum deal and I'm not interested in doing it at all. But that's my personal choice, and I understand that lots of people like the idea of getting married, and that's their choice. I don't want anyone limiting my rights, so I don't really care for someone trying to limit the rights of someone else. If they can deny rights to some of us, they can deny rights to the rest of us. If the owner of Chick-fil-A doesn't want to marry another guy, that's fine; he doesn't have to. But it's not his place to tell other people who they can or cannot marry. It's just "un-American" to try to limit someone else's freedom when it doesn't affect you; you know what I mean?
 
2012-07-27 02:03:45 AM  
The last time I ate at Chik-Fil-A, I got waited on by a kid named Jebediah.

/true story
 
2012-07-27 09:11:54 AM  

scottydoesntknow: Nothing like stuffing your face with mediocre chicken while simultaneously supporting hate groups!


i dunno the tears of all the butthurt farkers makes the chicken taste better

FloydA: Let me put it this way:

Gays are about 10% of the population of the US. Some people think that gays should not be allowed to marry the people they love.

Texans about 10% of the population of the US.


Let me put it this way:

lifestyle choice =/= geographical locations

but then again, since you're an idiot brigadier i'm actually surprised you didn't just play the old, people who have religious beliefs (and therefore a moral standard) are all racists

cuz ya know the comprehension of words, ideas, concepts and their meanings aren't a strong suit of the IB

sorry please continue fueling the anti-christian bigotry butthurt and outrage, i didn't mean to interupt

after all we all know exactly why you are here and what your actual objective is

"homosexual equality and civil rights" *wink wink nudge nudge*

/yeah that's it :D
 
2012-07-27 09:30:54 AM  

FloydA: What would you say to someone who claimed that fathers/daughters/mothers/sons/brothers/sisters should not have the right to marry? If you're like me, you'd say "f**k that; nobody can tell me who I can and can't marry! " and rightly so.


FloydA: What would you say to someone who claimed that man/animals should not have the right to marry? If you're like me, you'd say "f**k that; nobody can tell me who I can and can't marry! " and rightly so.


FloydA: What would you say to someone who claimed that pedophiles should not have the right to marry? If you're like me, you'd say "f**k that; nobody can tell me who I can and can't marry! " and rightly so.


FloydA: That's what the US is all about- personal freedom. Either everybody has the same rights or the "rights" don't mean squat. Rights are rights, and they are either ours simply by the nature of our existence (which I think), in which case everyone has the same rights, or our rights are "granted" to us by the government (which I don't think), in which case, some people get to decide who has rights and who doesn't. To me, the second case, which the anti-alternate lifestyle people are supporting, seems un-American.

So when someone tries to tell the alternate lifestyle choices "we get to decide who you can and can't marry," well, it gets my hackles up.


HERE! HERE! preach it bruther, civil rights!!1! those racists be damned, boycott their chicken, fark their chicken!!1!

let's fark their chicken!!1!! fark their chicken!!!! fark that chicken IB, fark that chicken, keep farkin it!!

/my hackles are upped
//anyone up for a debate?
 
2012-07-27 10:09:40 AM  

I drunk what: FloydA: What would you say to someone who claimed that fathers/daughters/mothers/sons/brothers/sisters should not have the right to marry? If you're like me, you'd say "f**k that; nobody can tell me who I can and can't marry! " and rightly so.

FloydA: What would you say to someone who claimed that man/animals should not have the right to marry? If you're like me, you'd say "f**k that; nobody can tell me who I can and can't marry! " and rightly so.

FloydA: What would you say to someone who claimed that pedophiles should not have the right to marry? If you're like me, you'd say "f**k that; nobody can tell me who I can and can't marry! " and rightly so.

FloydA: That's what the US is all about- personal freedom. Either everybody has the same rights or the "rights" don't mean squat. Rights are rights, and they are either ours simply by the nature of our existence (which I think), in which case everyone has the same rights, or our rights are "granted" to us by the government (which I don't think), in which case, some people get to decide who has rights and who doesn't. To me, the second case, which the anti-alternate lifestyle people are supporting, seems un-American.

So when someone tries to tell the alternate lifestyle choices "we get to decide who you can and can't marry," well, it gets my hackles up.

HERE! HERE! preach it bruther, civil rights!!1! those racists be damned, boycott their chicken, fark their chicken!!1!

let's fark their chicken!!1!! fark their chicken!!!! fark that chicken IB, fark that chicken, keep farkin it!!

/my hackles are upped
//anyone up for a debate?


No, in true idiot coward form, you've arrived several days late and a few hundred dollars short. Have fun raving to no one in particular with these opinions that you just suddenly got "brave" enough to post in a dying thread.
 
2012-07-27 10:22:07 AM  

mooseyfate: No, in true idiot coward form, you've arrived several days late and a few hundred dollars short. Have fun raving to no one in particular with these opinions that you just suddenly got "brave" enough to post in a dying thread.


images.cheezburger.com

what's on your mind?
 
2012-07-27 11:02:12 AM  

I drunk what: what's on your mind?


*crickets*

nothing, eh? well then, now you and FloydA have something in common

in true idiot coward form, indeed (couldn't have said it better myself)

have fun raving to the echo chamber... echo echo echo

oh and Floyd, good jorb on the "white knight" illusion, i think you have most of them fooled

9/10

/as usual
//keep farking that chicken
 
2012-07-27 11:08:48 AM  

I drunk what:
Let me put it this way:

lifestyle choice =/= geographical locations

but then again, since you're an idiot brigadier i'm actually surprised you didn't just play the old, people who have religious beliefs (and therefore a moral standard) are all racists

cuz ya know the comprehension of words, ideas, concepts and their meanings aren't a strong suit of the IB

sorry please continue fueling the anti-christian bigotry butthurt and outrage, i didn't mean to interupt

after all we all know exactly why you are here and what your actual objective is

"homosexual equality and civil rights" *wink wink nudge nudge*

/yeah that's it :D


As a Christian, I find your comments offensive to me and my believes, you anti-Christian bigot. Furthermore, I also know that my Jewish wife also finds your comments offensive, you anti-Semitic facist. So you can take your own extremist agenda and kindly keep it to yourself, thank you very much.
 
2012-07-27 11:19:30 AM  

ReverendLoki: As a Christian, I find your comments offensive to me and my believes, you anti-Christian bigot. Furthermore, I also know that my Jewish wife also finds your comments offensive, you anti-Semitic facist. So you can take your own extremist agenda and kindly keep it to yourself, thank you very much.


-1/10

needs moar misspelling outrage, chicken farking

but no worries, FloydA is probably already holding his hand up for an internet high five, brofist
 
2012-07-27 11:41:14 AM  

MikeyistheDevil: /Had Chick-Fil-A today, will probably have some again next week
//u mad


That's your right. However, be aware that part of the social contract in a relatively-unregulated market is that customers make purchasing decisions based not only on quality and value of service and product but also on the spending decisions of the company. (In this case, funding anti-gay groups.) We call this "voting with your dollar."

If you're opposed to voting with dollars, you should support a much more regulated marketplace, in which, for example, companies pay higher taxes to support social safety nets and/or are not allowed to contribute to political causes.

In other words, people who are choosing to boycott Chik-Fil-A are using the tools that a somewhat-free market gives them. There is nothing illegal about what you're doing but there is something anti-social about it (i.e. you are demonstrating that you indirectly do not treat gay people well) so people are judging you on a social level, not a legal one.

/same argument for people hating on Tosh - it's not illegal to suggest that a women should get gang-raped because she heckled a performer, but it indicates certain unsavory aspects of a person's character.
 
2012-07-27 12:18:38 PM  

mooseyfate: Saberus Terras: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I agree with you, though I hasten to note that the main reason Fred Rogers "will" not do any of those things is that he's been dead for nine years.

Damnit... Will you permit me to move these goalposts to he "didn't" do any of those things?

Unless you have linkable evidence... then I'll eat crow/my hat/my words and go cry.

Sorry, Phil Payne used of all the goalpost moving in this thread. You'll have to wait until the next thread about Chickfila shooings themselves in the foot, which should be any second now.


Damnit2!! So is this when I'm supposed to start foaming at the mouth and vehemently denying he's dead, and that he's really in Guatemala breast-feeding a pair of puma cubs that lost their mother to poachers?
 
2012-07-27 12:48:03 PM  
just finished off twice as much chick fil a then we usually get

something about the way the IB keeps farking it, makes it so tender and juicy, delicious

thanks FloydA for reminding us to keep our priorities straight, and to the rest of Fark that not only keeps reminding us about why we love companies like this, but also for introducing companies like this to people who didn't even know about them beforehand

keep up the good work!

blog.grubman.com
 
2012-07-27 12:56:59 PM  

ReverendLoki: As a Christian, I find your comments offensive to me and my believes, you anti-Christian bigot.


you sound concerned here have some chicken

chick-filacoupons.com

ReverendLoki: Furthermore, I also know that my Jewish wife also finds your comments offensive, you anti-Semitic facist.


a jewish wife huh? i bet she'd like some chicken

larryfire.files.wordpress.com

/she lives in Canada right?

mooseyfate: No, in true idiot coward form, you've arrived several days late and a few hundred dollars short. Have fun raving to no one in particular with these opinions that you just suddenly got "brave" enough to post in a dying thread.


hmm, you make a good point, i guess the only thing to say about that is, more chicken :D

farm3.static.flickr.com
 
2012-07-27 01:25:33 PM  

I drunk what: ReverendLoki: As a Christian, I find your comments offensive to me and my believes, you anti-Christian bigot.

you sound concerned here have some chicken



ReverendLoki: Furthermore, I also know that my Jewish wife also finds your comments offensive, you anti-Semitic facist.

a jewish wife huh? i bet she'd like some chicken



/she lives in Canada right?

mooseyfate: No, in true idiot coward form, you've arrived several days late and a few hundred dollars short. Have fun raving to no one in particular with these opinions that you just suddenly got "brave" enough to post in a dying thread.

hmm, you make a good point, i guess the only thing to say about that is, more chicken :D


You try waaay too hard. For a more successful trolling career, I'd recommend:

A) Showing up to the thread when it's actually active
B) Be more subtle. No one believes it when you go full-tilt into retard mode.
C) Make some kind of sense, even if it's only to other trolls. Right now your posts read like you're not only socially retarded, but mentally retarded as well. No one likes arguing with a special needs person.

If you could iron out those problems, you could actually make a decent troll. You've certainly got the spirit, you just need focus. You're all over the place. A good troll makes you wonder if maybe the person is serious, if even for a split second. Your entire "rant", coupled with the fact that you meekly waited out all the real discussion in this thread tells me you're not ready yet. Keep practicing, though. One day you might actually be good at something.
 
2012-07-27 01:50:26 PM  

mooseyfate: For a more successful trolling career


ah i see you are one of Floyd's understudies?

good for ya, here's a treat

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-27 02:11:49 PM  

I drunk what: mooseyfate: For a more successful trolling career

ah i see you are one of Floyd's understudies?

good for ya, here's a treat


You're painfully bad at this. Please get better.
 
2012-07-27 03:12:34 PM  

Saberus Terras: mooseyfate: Saberus Terras: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I agree with you, though I hasten to note that the main reason Fred Rogers "will" not do any of those things is that he's been dead for nine years.

Damnit... Will you permit me to move these goalposts to he "didn't" do any of those things?

Unless you have linkable evidence... then I'll eat crow/my hat/my words and go cry.

Sorry, Phil Payne used of all the goalpost moving in this thread. You'll have to wait until the next thread about Chickfila shooings themselves in the foot, which should be any second now.

Damnit2!! So is this when I'm supposed to start foaming at the mouth and vehemently denying he's dead, and that he's really in Guatemala breast-feeding a pair of puma cubs that lost their mother to poachers?


To be fair, we only have the reports of the liberal media that he died. It would be in their interests to try to conceal a living Rogers who didn't parrot their socialist agenda.

Bah, I suck at this. Sorry.
 
2012-07-27 05:08:59 PM  

mooseyfate: You're painfully bad at this. Please get better.


you're right, i know what will make me feel better

www.chick-fil-a.com

and a nice hand-spun milkshake to wash it down, yummy
 
Displayed 50 of 356 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report